4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Tracking the flow of bacterially derived 13C and 15N through soil faunal feeding channels

期刊

RAPID COMMUNICATIONS IN MASS SPECTROMETRY
卷 25, 期 11, 页码 1503-1513

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/rcm.4945

关键词

-

资金

  1. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The soil food web has been referred to as a 'black box', a 'poor man's tropical rainforest' and an 'enigma', due to its opacity, diversity and the limited insight into feeding specificity. Here we investigate the flow of C and N through the soil food web as a way to gain understanding of the feeding interactions occurring. A bacterium, Pseudomonas lurida, was introduced to soil cores from two different habitats, a grassland and a woodland with the same soil type, enriched to 99 atom% in C-13 and N-15, to trace the flow of bacterial C and N through the soil food web. Throughout the experiment the soil remained enriched in C-13 and N-15. Almost all the invertebrates tested gained C and N enrichment indicative of the labelled bacteria, implying that bacterial feeding is a common mechanism within the soil. Only three groups were significantly enriched in both C-13 and N-15 in both habitats. These were Collembola (Entomobryomorpha), Acari (Oribatida), and Nematoda, indicating that these organisms are consuming the most bacteria within both systems. When the invertebrates were grouped into hypothesised trophic levels, those considered secondary decomposers were gaining the most enrichment across all invertebrates tested. This enrichment was also high in the micro-predators within the soil, implying that their main food source was the secondary decomposers, particularly the Collembola. Using an enriched bacterium to track the trophic transfer between organisms within the soil food web is a novel way of empirically showing that interactions are occurring, which normally cannot be seen. Copyright (C) 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据